Author
Topic: Why would God heal amputees? [#2696] (Read 753 times)

I just glanced over your website and was wondering why you assume, if you do assume, that if God existed that he would heal amputees. If that is how God is expected to behave, why wouldn't he have just created a utopia where there are no amputees in the first place?

Also, I agree with you to some extent about the Bible. It is not sacred. It is written by man not God. I believe lots of it is inspired by God, but as a whole was never approved by God. I believe it's another of man's attempts to define God and put him in a box so we can study him.

I agree with many parts of your reasoning, but I am a Christian. I believe that God not only exists but is all-powerful and my Savior. And I believe your question of about the amputees is fundamentally flawed.

Please reply! I really want to look at your forum but it's down right now.

-[name removed]

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

The main reason the question is asked is because there are plenty of Christians who claim that God does heal all other sorts of human ailments through prayer. If this were true, it would stand to reason that God would also heal an amputee or two along the way. I mean, why not?

Now, to be sure, the premise is that God really doesn't heal anyone, for any reason. The complete lack of any amputee healing is a good indicator that there is no god.

It is up to the religious who think that god heals cancers and such to explain why he doesn't heal amputees. And just saying that it makes no sense doesn't explain it worth a hoot.

He didn't create a utopia without cancer but a friend recently given a clean bill of health after a big bout with cancer keeps getting told that god did it. Her retort: Why the f**k didn't god heal her daughter of brain cancer 30 years ago? She would trade places in a second with her long lost daughter, because moms who love their kids will always do that. God who loves kids doesn't love them THAT much, for heavens sake.

Now if god isn't involved at all, via the very effective medium of non-existence, then the various health problems in the world that do get cured can be explained by the fact that sometimes diseases do go away, either via treatment or spontaneous reversal. Amputated legs and arms and such go away, and never return. And that is never as in "never", not "hey, god doesn't do stuff like that so it is never in this case, but, you know, but sometimes he does it in other cases" never.

We're not confused at all. Ours is a rhetorical question, because there is no real answer. Other than our rather safe assumption that god-guy doesn't exist. Which explains everything. Amazingly well.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

I agree with the OP. God is not going to waste His time healing an amputee. That would take away Faith. No one wants that. Besides...God has more important things to do NFL playoffs are coming up, HIs birthday is near...seems like its been forever, and Im sure He is getting his next big disaster ready...afterall, 2 states passed gay marriage laws.

I just glanced over your website and was wondering why you assume, if you do assume, that if God existed that he would heal amputees headaches/cancer/delete as appropriate. If that is how God is expected to behave, why wouldn't he have just created a utopia where there are no amputees headaches/cancer/delete as appropriate in the first place?

When you understand why you AREN'T able to ask the amended question I've posed above, then you'll have grasped the actual question the WWGHA site is posing.

I just glanced over your website and was wondering why you assume, if you do assume, that if God existed that he would heal amputees. If that is how God is expected to behave, why wouldn't he have just created a utopia where there are no amputees in the first place?

Also, I agree with you to some extent about the Bible. It is not sacred. It is written by man not God. I believe lots of it is inspired by God, but as a whole was never approved by God. I believe it's another of man's attempts to define God and put him in a box so we can study him.

I agree with many parts of your reasoning, but I am a Christian. I believe that God not only exists but is all-powerful and my Savior. And I believe your question of about the amputees is fundamentally flawed.

Please reply! I really want to look at your forum but it's down right now.

-[name removed]

If God is a savior and is all powerful, why WOULDN'T he heal amputees? Does he hate them in particular?

We'll put it this way, a group of people has a severe otherwise untreatable injury and you have a magic power that would end that cure that injury if you were to say "TOTO TOO" but you refuse to say it. Would you be considered to be a good person?

WWGHA? The question posits the implication that either God is impotent, or uncaring, or non existent...which mean that the God believed by monotheists like yourself is impossible.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

I believe it's another of man's attempts to define God and put him in a box so we can study him.

I agree with many parts of your reasoning, but I am a Christian. I believe that God not only exists but is all-powerful and my Savior. And I believe your question of about the amputees is fundamentally flawed.

Well, when you have no definition to what you believe, then you can believe in anything you like and not find any of it invalid at all.

Logged

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

I just glanced over your website and was wondering why you assume, if you do assume, that if God existed that he would heal amputees. If that is how God is expected to behave, why wouldn't he have just created a utopia where there are no amputees in the first place?

Also, I agree with you to some extent about the Bible. It is not sacred. It is written by man not God. I believe lots of it is inspired by God, but as a whole was never approved by God. I believe it's another of man's attempts to define God and put him in a box so we can study him.

I agree with many parts of your reasoning, but I am a Christian. I believe that God not only exists but is all-powerful and my Savior. And I believe your question of about the amputees is fundamentally flawed.

Please reply! I really want to look at your forum but it's down right now.

-[name removed]

I'd say 'why' is fairly simple, the bible. You'll see the reasoning on the site. Of course, you're going by the argument that the bible is the word of man, but inspired by God, rather than the literalist "bible is the word of God" approach, whilst I believe it's a more reasonable approach but there are still problems. The question 'Why Won't God Heal Amputees?' is a question to do with prayer and not so much the problem of evil. The bible is very clear about the nature of prayer and yet, it never it never really does anything extra-ordinary...all it ever seems to do is things that could happen without prayer, contrary to the bible's claims. So the question is valid, though it may not be as applicable to those with a loose belief in the validity of the bible. Though the bible seems to represent the true nature of God and if you read the bible, particularly the old testament and it isn't pretty. Unless of course, you wish to such the bible is entirely fictional and in no way represents God, then of course we're talking about something entirely different.

So when people present the problem of evil, I think, actually, if the stories in the bible represent that God, then actually there's plenty of reasons why perfectly innocent people suffer greatly as a result of man's evil and why people suffer natural evil. What scares me reading the bible is that the Pat Robertsons out there understand God better than Christians I like. He's a dark and vengeful SOB and is very self-centred on the idea of worship and seems to have a damaged ego. Sure the new testament seems to sweeten him up more and has made him less wrathful and more forgiving, but if we're looking at the bible as whole, the new testament feels like I'm watching Ed Gein starting a charity for victims of mutilation, at the same time still showing signs of his past behaviour.

Though he is much nicer to his followers, except for the odd test of faith (wasn't there a story where he pretty much ruined a guy's life as a test to prove to the devil the man wouldn't break his faith?).

All I've been able to deduce is that this God is very sick and cruel and has a massive ego. He'll be nice if you worship him though and reward you in the afterlife, hence the ego. However, it is the severe lack of evidence that makes me a non-believer and the lack of evidence for any other gods out there. Each are very good at demonstrating a lack of presence...except in the stories people tell about them.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

I just glanced over your website and was wondering why you assume, if you do assume, that if God existed that he would heal amputees. If that is how God is expected to behave, why wouldn't he have just created a utopia where there are no amputees in the first place?

No utopia is necessary - there are more creatures on earth that can regenerate limbs than those that cannot. Why would God arrange it this way. If he loved us more than lizards and spiders, why do we have to suffer a permanent amputation?

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”